gms | German Medical Science

131. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie

25.03. - 28.03.2014, Berlin

Article

Send article

Propensity-score analysis after conventional aortic valve replacement vs transapical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery. Initial clinical results and follow-up

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Sems Tugtekin - Herzzentrum Dresden, Herzchirurgie, Dresden
  • Manuel Wilbring - Herzzentrum Dresden, Herzchirurgie, Dresden
  • Klaus Matschke - Herzzentrum Dresden, Herzchirurgie, Dresden
  • Utz Kappert - Herzzentrum Dresden, Herzchirurgie, Dresden
  • Konstantin Alexiou - Herzzentrum Dresden, Herzchirurgie, Dresden

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. 131. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie. Berlin, 25.-28.03.2014. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2014. Doc14dgch250

doi: 10.3205/14dgch250, urn:nbn:de:0183-14dgch2502

Published: March 21, 2014

© 2014 Tugtekin et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.

Outline

Text

Introduction: The present analysis compared clinical and mid-term outcomes of patients with previous cardiac surgery undergoing transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with propensity-matched patients undergoing conventional redo aortic valve replacement (cAVR).

Material and methods: Since 2008, 508 patients were treated with TAVI. Fifty-three of these patients presented with a history of cardiac surgery and underwent transapical TAVI using the Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthesis. A propensity-matched control group of 53 patients receiving cAVR was generated out of the hospital's database. The mean age for all the patients was 77.8 ± 4.5 years. The logistic EuroSCORE was 28.4 ± 13.6% in mean, and mean EuroSCORE II was 8.56 ± 3.93%. The mean follow-up time was 245 ± 323 days, which equated to a total of 700 patient-months.

Results: The observed hospital mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI and cAVR (TAVI: 9.4% and cAVR: 5.7%; P = 0.695). Six-month survival was 83.0% for the TAVI and 86.8% for the cAVR patients (P = 0.768). Postoperative bleedings (TAVI: 725 ± 1770 ml and cAVR: 1884 ± 6387; P = 0.022), the need for transfusion (TAVI: 1.7 ± 5.3 vs cAVR: 6.2 ± 13.7 units packed red blood cells (PRBC); P = 0.030), consecutive rethoracotomy (TAVI: 1.9% vs cAVR: 16.9%; P = 0.002) and postoperative delirium (TAVI: 11.5% vs cAVR: 28.3%; P = 0.046) were more common in the cAVR patients. The TAVI patients suffered more frequently from respiratory failure (TAVI: 11.3% vs cAVR: 0.0%; P = 0.017) and mean grade of paravalvular regurgitation (TAVI: 0.8 ± 0.2 vs cAVR: 0.0; P = 0.047). Although primary ventilation time (P = 0.020) and intensive care unit stay (P = 0.022) were shorter in the TAVI patients, mean hospital stay did not differ significantly (P = 0.108).

Conclusion: Transapical TAVI as well as surgical aortic valve replacement provided good clinical results. The pattern of postoperative morbidity and mortality was different for both entities, but the final clinical outcome did not differ significantly. Both techniques can be seen as complementary approaches by means of developing a tailor-made and patient-orientated surgery.